Tag Archives: Peer review

New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget

Posted on September 20, 2011 by

Oh dear, now we have three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that. What will Trenberth … Continue reading →

About these ads
Posted in clouds, Spencer-Braswell and Dessler | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 315 Comments

Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day

Posted on September 16, 2011 by

Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes: Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review, Spencer-Braswell and Dessler | Tagged , , , , | 69 Comments

The Spencer and Braswell story goes viral

Posted on September 3, 2011 by

Earlier today I checked in to the WUWT dashboard and was surprised to see that WUWT had the #1 story on all of WordPress.com this morning: Tonight, checking in again, I discover not only is WUWT still near the top … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 91 Comments

BREAKING: Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper

Posted on September 2, 2011 by

UPDATE: Sept 6th Hot off the press: Dessler’s record turnaround time GRL rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell (September 4) Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. continues his discussion at his blog: Hatchet Job on John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 564 Comments

Quote of the Week – rubbishing peer review

Posted on July 19, 2011 by

Here I am, minding my own business, looking at my local newspaper, and just reading what is happening locally. Then, out pops this profound quote of the week that is just gobsmacking. The first line of the story starts out … Continue reading →

Posted in Local_issues, Peer review | Tagged , | 94 Comments

Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account

Posted on April 20, 2011 by

by Dr. Roger Pielke Senior There is an informative article by Ross McKittrick McKitrick, Ross R. (2011) “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account” in Climate Coup, Patrick J. Michaels ed., Cato Inst. Washington DC. This … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , | 61 Comments

RealClimate’s over-the-top response

Posted on February 22, 2011 by

Gavin must be having a bad hair day, because this headline is most certainly over the top: Now compare the headline to the letter that was sent, bold emphasis mine:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 191 Comments

The Spectator on the Antarctic Ice Capades

Posted on February 17, 2011 by

Nicolas Lewis and Matt Ridley have written a scathing article in the Spectator (UK) regarding the treatment of O’Donnell et al during the peer review and post peer review process. I’ve been privileged with receiving an advance copy. Since this … Continue reading →

Posted in Antarctic | Tagged , , , | 73 Comments

O’Donnell Responds to Steig

Posted on February 11, 2011 by

From Climate Audit, more on the ongoing Antarctic kerfluffle. By Ryan O’Donnell Subsequent to my post on Feb 7, 2010 here, Eric Steig informed me by email that he had not seen our Response to his Third Review, as I … Continue reading →

Posted in Antarctic, Peer review | Tagged , , | 98 Comments

“Reviewer A” responds

Posted on February 10, 2011 by

The row over the issue of Antarctica warming continues. After a number of articles appeared at the Air Vent, Lucia’s, and Climate Audit, Dr. Steig responds at RealClimate with some accusations of his own. I offered Dr. Steig a guest … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 196 Comments

New journal launched

Posted on January 25, 2011 by

This new journal doesn’t seem to have the haughtiness seen by some other journals. I hope they provide letters suitable for framing. I suggest everyone submit a paper here at least twice, because as we know, three’s a charm. Here’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Fun_stuff, Peer review | Tagged , , , | 61 Comments